I'm surprised this is getting a lot of hate a dislike here. I thought the film was brilliant. It definitely managed to creep the fuck out of me. Especially the last scene which I watched by peeping from under a blanket (something I've never done during a movie).
I never found it boring and I thought the character were real and interesting the whole way through. I LOVED Sara Baxton's performance which at times was quite humorous.
I'm a sucker for ghost stories and there were moments which were genuinely suspenseful and had me on the edge of my seat. I do agree that the scene where she ventures into the basement to look for the old woman is a big WTF moment. I didn't understand that logic. Still, this movie gets an A in my book.

Watched it tonight. I liked it, a lot actually, but not as much as House of the Devil. This one is slow paced too, obviously intentionally, but the tension is the opposite of House. In that film, you had this dread going on that the main character seemed oblivious to, which ratcheted up the unease big time. But in The Innkeepers, everything felt pretty....safe. It seemed like the main characters were much more frightened than the situation lent itself to be, so it seemed a little hollow.

It does get a lot more interesting once it gets cooking though, but it does take time to get there. Again, the opposite of House of the Devil. With that film, I felt no exposition could possibly match the built up tension (and indeed, it was actually a bit of a let-down once it did heat up), here I was thinking to myself "this better lead to something good".

In an earlier post in this thread, I referred to jump scares as "cheap and manipulative". Innkeepers goes for the jump scare route, but the first one is the most cheap and manipulative one in the book (one we've all fallen for at least once), so I kinda think West was trying to show that they're a trick that should not take the place of real tension. Not sure if I'm making my point well enough here, I just think the choice of the first jump scare had a very intentional meaning.

I don't have the urge to see it again like I did with House, but I was still very entertained by it.

This is a flawed but interesting movie with very unusual strengths and weaknesses. The characters are likeable and interesting. I also liked the deliberate pace, which seems to be a consistent strength for West. He doesn't skimp on character development to race from scare to scare. We get to know and like the main characters--which should really add impact to the story once things get strange.

But the scares just aren't there. Almost every attempt to elicit fear or suspense underwhelmed and reminded me of a better film. Normally that would make a film like this completely worthless. But the characters are so strong that it's still worth your time.

It's refreshing to see a genre offering that tries this hard to be more than a funhouse ride. I think West is a guy to watch going forward.

I saw it a couple of months ago and enjoyed it.Different in style from HOUSE OF THE DEVIL but a nice slow burner.Really liked the main actresses low key turn as well,she and the leading man were unconventional choices for the lead of a modern horror film.

I watched it last night and found it was a decent little ghost movie. A couple of pretty good scares. It brought me back to when I was a kid and there would be a sunday afternoon movie on like Mr. Boogedy or Amazing Stories. Kind of creepy in a safe, family fun kind of way. It's no House of the Devil, but it was decent.

I finally checked this out. I was surprised that I enjoyed almost the entire movie because it was very slow and didn't have alot going on overall, but it was very interesting and fun to see it develop. Pretty good characters and acting along with a cool location (although it would have been a little more creepy if it had been more isolated or off the beaten path). I thought the ending was underwhelming and kind of left a "Oh, OK, I guess that's it" feeling, but overall a nice little atmospheric ghost/haunted house story.

I enjoyed it for the most part, but I would have liked a little more information in certain areas. I understand the "come to your own conclusions" theory and overall I respect that, but this flick was really subtle in certain areas on background if at all. Speaking of "subtle", I had to read on IMDB about the last scene in Clare's room - that actually was kinda cool. There's no way anyone would ever notice that unless they were told. I look forward to more of Ti's movies.

I enjoyed it for the most part, but I would have liked a little more information in certain areas. I understand the "come to your own conclusions" theory and overall I respect that, but this flick was really subtle in certain areas on background if at all. Speaking of "subtle", I had to read on IMDB about the last scene in Clare's room - that actually was kinda cool. There's no way anyone would ever notice that unless they were told. I look forward to more of Ti's movies.

As you focus on Clare's room in the last shot about her ghost will appear in the curtain to the right of the window peering out of it. She then slightly turns her head looking at you the viewer then the door slams.

I think people only figured this out because of the Ti's commentary. I never would have noticed it if it wasn't pointed out to me.

As you focus on Clare's room in the last shot about her ghost will appear in the curtain to the right of the window peering out of it. She then slightly turns her head looking at you the viewer then the door slams.

I think people only figured this out because of the Ti's commentary. I never would have noticed it if it wasn't pointed out to me.